Castro’s border plan sets tone for Democrats
WASHINGTON — For two months, Julián Castro’s proposal to end criminal penalties for crossing the border illegally lay in a heap of white papers from 2020 Democratic hopefuls. It drew little attention, given the former San Antonio mayor’s second-tier status in the field.
But since Castro aired the plan with conviction in the first round of televised Democratic debates in June, the proposal has emerged as a flashpoint, separating liberal candidates from moderates and fueling the Trump re-election campaign’s drive to brand Democrats as the party of lawless “open borders.”
The rise of Castro’s plan as a central feature of the 2020 immigration debate has tracked Castro’s own rise as a presidential contender. A candidate who started with no organization and a resumé thin on recent political experience now is on the cusp of qualifying for the fall debates in a winnowed field of rivals.
The significance of the border issue was underlined on Wednesday by a sharp exchange between Castro and Joe Biden during the most recent Democratic debate, in Detroit. Both men served under President Barack Obama — Biden as vice president, Castro as secretary of housing and urban development.
In describing his proposal to decriminalize border crossings, Castro remarked that some of the candidates on the stage had “taken the bait” dangled by conservative critics, parroting their “open borders” talking point.
“If you cross the border illegally, you should be able to be sent back. It’s a crime,” Biden retorted. He added that when he served with Castro in the Obama administration, he hadn’t heard Castro “talk about any of this.”
Castro followed with a practiced line recalled in various post-debate analyses.
“First of all, Mr. Vice President,” Castro said, “it looks like one of us has learned the lessons of the past and one of us hasn’t.”
There would be more. After Castro proclaimed the need for politicians “with guts” to move boldly on immigration reform, Biden attempted a full smackdown of Castro and his border plan.
“I have guts enough to say his plan doesn’t make sense,” Biden said. “The fact of the matter is that when people cross the border illegally, it is illegal to do it unless they’re seeking asylum. People should have to get in line.”
The picture of Castro going toe-to-toe with the former vice president — the leader in presidential polls — said something about Castro’s newfound stature as a candidate. After reaching the 130,000-donor threshold, one of the criteria to qualify for the next round of debates, Castro must register at least 2 percent in four approved polls to secure a place on the stage.
As in June, Castro’s debate performance on Wednesday drew praise. A Washington Post assessment said that “Castro might have been the standout.”
On Thursday, Castro won the endorsement of the Latino Victory Project, a Democratic-aligned PAC. The endorsement was unsurprising, given that Latino Victory has roots in San Antonio and was co-founded by Henry Muñoz, a San Antonio businessman and former finance chair of the Democratic National Committee.
Nevertheless, it could prove important to Castro’s candidacy. Support from organizations with a national presence could help him reach the needed level of support in polls.
The Castro-Biden exchange put a spotlight on immigration as a fault line in the Democratic field.
In contrast to Biden, those who have embraced Castro’s plan include Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker and South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg.
Trump’s re-election campaign sent out emails likening Castro’s proposal to Medicare for All and the socalled Green New Deal — a proposed 10-year national effort to address climate change and economic inequality — as examples of extremist ideas from Democratic contenders.
The challenge for Democrats is to connect the dots between decriminalizing border crossings and eliminating the need for family separation, a now-abandoned Trump administration policy that proved highly unpopular.
It is a federal crime to cross or attempt to cross the U.S. border “at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers.”
It is this provision — Section 1325 of Title 8 of the U.S. Code — that enabled separation of migrant families at the border, once parents were taken into custody in order to be prosecuted. Even without criminal penalties, offenders still would be subject to civil proceedings.
Efrén Olivares, a staff member at the Texas Civil Rights Project, an Austin legal advocacy group, argued that criminal prosecution is a wasteful exercise that needlessly delays asylum proceedings.
“It’s a waste of law enforcement resources, border resources and court resources. It fills up the court docket here in McAllen and all over. What happens in virtually all of these cases is that people plead guilty and are sentenced to time served,” Olivares said. “Then the minute they step out of the courtroom, they are turned over to” Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Matt Barreto, a professor of political science at UCLA and cofounder of the polling firm Latino Decisions, said he believes the focus on decriminalizing border crossings “certainly started with Castro and, I think, will continue to be an important question, specifically because the issue of family separation and child detention has become a national crisis. And everyone, including many Republicans, agrees with that when you look at polling data.”
Barreto added: “Castro has positioned this as a solution to that specific issue, not some dream wish list. Because of that, I don’t think that the right-wing ‘open borders’ attack is going to stick. It’s going to continue to be a discussion about why we had this provision in the first place.”